CONTENTS(click on the link below to go to the appropriate section)

2001 Annual General Meeting
    President’s Message
    Secretary’s Report
    Treasurer’s Report
    Membership Secretary’s Report
    Adelaide Study Weekend: Reports

Chapter Reports
MSA Member wins AMS Award
Update on Musicology Australia
Naomi Cumming Foundation News
Gender & Sexuality Group & New Pacific-Wide Association
Aust. Cultural Studies Association
Calls for Papers 25th National Conf., Newcastle 2002
IASPM Conference
IAML Conference
Aust. Voice Symposium
CSAA Conference 2002
37th World ICTM Conference
SIMS 2004 Inc.
Overseas Music Conferences
Miscellaneous Notices from the National Library
Register of Postgraduate Dissertations

Musicological Society of Australia Incorporated

 2001 Annual General Meeting 

Held at the Elder School of Music, University of Adelaide

Sunday, 23 September 2001, 2.05 pm

 DRAFT MINUTES

Tabled:   A:                 Agenda

                B:                Minutes of last AGM, 12 November 2000, University of Newcastle

                C:                President’s Report

                D:                Secretary’s Report

                E:                Membership Secretary’s Report

                F:                Journal Editor’s Report

                G:                Website Coordinator’s Report

                H:                Report on the Symposium of the International Musicological Society,
                                    Melbourne 2004

                I:                 International Council for Traditional Music (ICTM) Report

                J:                Report on the 24th National Conference, Melbourne 2001

                K:              Title page from Music Business Journal

Nicholas Routley, Society President, welcomed Society members to the meeting. There was a minute’s silence towards the end of the meeting for all victims of the 11 September attacks. Kimi Coaldrake and Roland Bannister were appointed as returning officers.

Present: Nicholas Routley (chair), Paul Attinello, Roland Bannister, Peter Campbell, Kimi Coaldrake, Craig De Wilde, Steven Knopoff, John Phillips, Rosemary Richards, Helen Rusak, Aline Scott-Maxwell, Jennie Shaw, Natalie Shea, Mark Smith, Graham Strahle, Jula Szuster, Chris Wainwright, John Whiteoak.

1. Apologies

Apologies were received from Linda Barwick, Shelley Brunt, Brett Chapman, Joel Crotty, Ryan Daniel, Michael Ewans, Dorrotya Fabian, Anne-Marie Forbes, Royston Gustavson, Rosalind Halton, Margaret Kartomi, Elizabeth Kertesz, Marika Leininger-Ogawa, Peter McCallum, Sandra McColl, Grantley McDonald, Elizabeth Mackinlay, Alan Marett, Aliese Millington, Kerry Murphy, Kathleen Nelson, Simon Perry, Gordon Spearritt, Jason Stoessel, David Symons, Shirley Trembath, Myfany Turpin, Paul Watt, Stephen Wild, Carol Williams and John Williamson.

2. Confirmation of the Minutes of the AGM, 12 November 2000

It was moved that: The minutes of the 12 November 2000 meeting be accepted.

Moved: Craig De Wilde                                Seconded: Jula Szuster

3. Matters arising from the Minutes of the 2000 Annual General Meeting

Matters arising from the Minutes were held over to AOB at the end of the meeting.

4. Society Reports

 4.1 President’s Report

Nicholas Routley summarised his President’s report (tabled). He expressed optimism in the growing diversity of the Society’s membership and interests and commented on the increasing cross-disciplinary interaction between the Society and a number of other organisations, including the International Association for the Study of Popular Music (IASPM) and the International Council for Tradi­tional Music (ICTM). The Society’s 2001 National Conference in Melbourne had been the largest in the Society’s history and, despite funding problems (within universities especially), the Society’s membership continues to increase in some chapters. For their expertise in handling Society membership and business matters after the resignation of elected Secretary Kathy Marsh in April 2001, Nicholas expressed his heartfelt thanks to John Phillips as the Society’s Business Manager and Newsletter Editor, Treasurer Natalie Shea and to Chris Wainwright as acting Secretary and Membership Secretary.

It was moved that: The President’s Report be accepted.

Moved: Craig De Wilde                                Seconded: Peter Campbell

4.2 Secretary’s Report

Chris Wainwright, acting National Secretary, summarised issues in the Sec­retary’s Report (tabled). Chris mentioned that the Society’s website, temporarily affected by the demise of Internet provider OneTel, was now back online. Internet links had been increased to other sites of interest to members. The Society has also recently received an inquiry from UNESCO about our services and needs: in the longer term Chris understood that some information about the Society may be added to a website being built by UNESCO. The Register of Graduate Theses has, in accordance with a motion of the National Committee, had its name changed to the ‘Postgraduate Dissertations Register’ and this is now being placed on line. Chris thanked Kathy Marsh for her hard work as Secretary before her resignation. He also thanked a number of other members, in particular Jaki Kane for her assistance with the transfer online of the Register of Graduate Theses/Postgraduate Dissertations Register and John Phillips for his assistance with and advice on Society matters. Jula Szuster expressed her support for the placement of the Postgraduate Dissertations Register on the Society’s website.

It was moved that: The Secretary’s Report be accepted.

Moved: Jula Szuster                                Seconded: Steven Knopoff

4.3 Membership Secretary’s Report

Chris Wainwright, Membership Secretary, summarised issues in his report (tabled). Chris noted that membership remained stable overall, with a considerable increase in student memberships in Victoria thanks to the National Conference. The Northern NSW Chapter had also been reactivated and the new Hunter chapter, based in Newcastle NSW, was ready to be formed. The number of members who were financial by the AGM had increased from 64% in November 2000 to 74% in September 2001. Jula commented that the increase in active membership was probably a direct benefit of the division of roles between the Secretary and Membership Secretary, since the Membership Secretary had been able to focus more attention on this issue.

It was moved that: The Membership Secretary’s Report be accepted.

Moved: Craig De Wilde                                Seconded: John Phillips                

4.4 Treasurer’s Report

Natalie Shea, Society Treasurer, summarised issues in her report and drew attention to the attached auditor’s report (tabled). The Society’s finances decreased slightly in the 2000-2001 financial year (by $1,874) but, with two volumes of Musicology Australia produced during that time and the creation of a new text design for the journal, this had been expected. There had been a large increase in income from membership subscriptions and the Society’s investment accounts continued to produce good income for the Society. Natalie recommended that membership fees not be increased in the next membership year because there was no need, but that the issue should be monitored. She also noted that the 23rd National Conference in Sydney had made a small loss and that the accounts from the Newcastle Study Weekend 2000 and the 24th National Conference in Melbourne would appear in the coming year’s financial records. Natalie thanked Nicholas Routley, Kathy Marsh and Chris Wainwright for their support, as well as former Treasurer Jula Szuster and former Secretary John Phillips for their guidance in the transfer of duties to the new Executive.

         In response to a question from Rosemary Richards, Natalie explained that the Society’s current liability of just over $1000 consisted of a number of unpresented cheques. Many of those were chapter distributions that had not been cashed. John Phillips remarked that this was an ongoing problem. Rosemary suggested that perhaps Society chapters should be forced to apply for their share of distributions. Steven Knopoff suggested that, as a practical solution, the National Executive could request direct deposit details for chapter accounts and supply distributions that way. There was general support for this proposition, especially since, as Peter Campbell pointed out, electronic transfers now attract few or no fees. Paul Attinello asked whether any of the cheques could now be cancelled. Peter Campbell replied that cheques had to be presented to most financial institutions within 12 months, so much of the current liability could be wiped off the books. Following general discussion of these issues Nicholas Routley stated that the Executive would consider the distribution of chapter funds by direct transfer. This would not require Constitutional amendment.

It was moved that: The Treasurer’s Report be accepted.

Moved: Nicholas Routley                                Seconded: Craig De Wilde

4.5 Business Manager’s Report

John Phillips, Business Manager for the Society, read his report to members present. In this role, John had continued to invoice and correspond with the Society’s Institutional Members. With the assistance of Peter Campbell, 170 copies of Musicology Australia vol. 23, in the new format, had been mailed to institutional members. Since the distribution of vol. 22, three institutional members had cancelled their subscriptions, and four others had been deleted from the Society’s records for non-payment. John was pleased to announce that the vast majority had already paid their subscriptions for vol. 24, and it was thus imperative that this volume was mailed to members by the end of calendar year 2001. John would also follow up on the ongoing issue of non-payment of the GST by several overseas subscribers. John thanked Paul Attinello and Peter Campbell for their assistance and noted that, as a result of correspondence received by the National Executive this year, he would be handing the Business Manager’s duties over to the Membership Secretary. Nicholas Routley remarked that the Executive endorsed the amalgamation of the duties of the Business Manager with those of the Membership Secretary.

It was moved that: The Business Manager’s Report be accepted.

Moved: Jula Szuster                                Seconded: Chris Wainwright

4.6 Journal Editor’s Report

Nicholas Routley read the Journal Editor’s report submitted by Paul Watt (tabled). Paul noted that volume 23 (2000) of Musicology Australia had been published in April 2001, and that volume 24 (2001) was on schedule to be published in December 2001. The new cover and text design had been warmly received. Paul noted some changes in personnel. Sandra McColl had resigned as assistant editor and had been replaced by Jennie Shaw. In addition, the five-year tenure of those on the Editorial Advisory Committee of Musicology Australia had expired, and a new Committee had been selected. Members who had accepted invitations to serve on the new Editorial Advisory Committee were Allan Marett, Sandra McColl, Michael Noone, Alison Tokita, Richard Toop, Stephen Wild and Nicholas Routley (ex officio). Paul thanked members of the previous Editorial Advisory Committee for their efforts over the past years, and warmly welcomed the new Editorial Advisory Committee members. While Paul had had no success in attracting advertisers to the journal, the Society had joined Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) in April 2001 and was about to receive the first payment of $92.57 for monies owing to the Society by users who had copied journal items between 1995 and 1998. Paul also thanked all those who had contributed to the journal over the past year.

         In response to a question asked by Aline Scott-Maxwell, Nicholas Routley mentioned that, at the National Committee meeting in April 2001, it had been decided that Paul Watt and Nicholas Routley, in consultation with Stephen Wild, would invite a number of Society members to serve on the new Editorial Advisory Committee. Jennie Shaw explained that, according to Paul, invitations had been issued primarily on the basis of expertise, although chapter affiliation had also been taken into account. Nicholas remarked that, following a motion passed at the 22 September 2001 meeting of the National Committee, he would be writing to former Editorial Advisory Committee members Malcolm Gillies, Margaret Kartomi, Shirley Trembath and David Tunley to thank them for their contributions to the journal’s activities.

It was moved that: The Journal Editor’s Report be accepted.

Moved: Craig De Wilde                                Seconded: Peter Campbell

4.7 Newsletter Editor’s Report

John Phillips, Newsletter Editor, read his report to members present. John noted that volume 54 of the Newsletter had been distributed in March 2001 and volume 55 had been mailed in September. Following discussion at the National Committee meeting in April 2001, John had looked more closely at the issue of electronic publishing, but it was the view of John and of the Executive that it was too soon to move to an entirely electronic version of the Newsletter. Timely delivery was not an issue: John remarked that turnaround from the deadline items for the Newsletter, printing and placement on the Society’s website had only been a few days for both volumes this year. John also commented that libraries in particular, as well as some individual members, still wanted hard copies of the Newsletter for their records. In conclusion John thanked KwikKopy Unley for keeping the printing costs low for the Society, Paul Attinello and Jennie Shaw for proofreading items, and Chris Wainwright and Anne-Marie Forbes for their assistance with mailing.

         John Whiteoak agreed with John’s conclusions concerning hard copy and electronic copy, since many institutions still collect hard copy for their archives. Chris Wainwright mentioned that, although website Coordinator Brett Chapman currently donates his services free of charge to the Society, Brett estimated that, if he did charge the Society it would cost $200–$250 for him to put the Newsletter in electronic format each time. John Phillips noted that it is not clear how many members are choosing to read the Newsletter only on the website. Jula Szuster mentioned that she enjoyed receiving and reading the hard copy version, but that she used the website version to access specific material. In response to a question by Steven Knopoff, John estimated that only $3-$4 per member per year would be saved by eliminating the hard copy versions. Helen Rusak suggested that an electronic version could be emailed to members. Paul Watt suggested that perhaps a reduction in membership fees could be considered for those who chose to receive the electronic version only. Natalie Shea cautioned that some members would be discouraged from paying membership fees if they could download versions of Society publications from the website. There was general discussion of these issues. In conclusion, Craig De Wilde suggested that, as long as the mailing of the Newsletter was combined with another mailed item such as the journal, then the minimal costs to members did not, for the time being, warrant a move to entirely electronic format. Nicholas agreed with this suggestion, but would monitor the situation.

It was moved that: The Newsletter Editor’s Report be accepted.

Moved: Paul Attinello                                Seconded: Steven Knopoff

4.8 Website Coordinator’s Report

Chris Wainwright read the report submitted by Website Coordinator Brett Chapman (tabled). Brett noted that the main event since his last report had been the demise of OneTel and the subsequent loss of service without notice to members for several days. Brett was please to report that access to the website had been quickly restored. All data had been backed up on Brett’s computer, so no Society records had been lost. Brett thanked Chris for his tireless efforts to coordinate the transfer of the Society’s website services to Telstra. Brett also noted a significant increase in reciprocal links with other sites of interest to members.

         Chris mentioned that Mac users were still experiencing problems with the layout of the Society’s website. Other issues were those of website development and marketing and E-commerce possibilities. General discussion was confined to the first issue. Jennie Shaw mentioned that, although there were some ongoing problems for Mac users, primarily in reading links on the homepage, Brett had been extremely prompt in responding to suggested changes and in posting material of interest to members on the site. In addition, Paul Attinello asked whether it would be possible to hire a student member of the Society when Brett’s term expired. John Phillips pointed out that Brett was indeed a Society member and that he had provided his services free of charge over the past two years, for which the Society was very grateful.

It was moved that: The Website Coordinator’s Report be accepted.

Moved: Craig De Wilde                                Seconded: Nicholas Routley

4.9 International Musicological Society (IMS) Report

Craig De Wilde referred members present to the Symposium of the Inter­national Musicological Society (SIMS 2004) report submitted by Margaret Kartomi (tabled). The Symposium is to be held at Monash University, Mel­bourne, 12-18 July 2004. The interim committee had appointed a man­age­ment committee of Margaret Kartomi (Chair), Craig de Wilde (Secretary), Royston Gustavson (Treasurer), Joel Crotty (Public Officer), Malcolm Gillies, Robyn Holmes, Sandra McColl and Stephen Wild. The committee was in the process of incorporating under the name of The 2004 Symposium of the International Musicological Society (SIMS 2004).

         The interim committee had proposed that the Symposium be co-hosted by the MSA, The International Council for Traditional Music (ICTM) and The International Association for the Study of Popular Music (IASPM). Craig strongly urged the Society to support the proposal. Nicholas pointed out that the National Committee of the Society had agreed to recommend that the Society hold a conference jointly with SIMS in 2004.

         Craig stressed that, since the SIMS 2004 management committee would be an incorporated body, the MSA would not be financially liable for any losses incurred by SIMS 2004. On the other hand, since it was IMS policy to put any symposia and conference profits toward IMS publications, the Society would not receive any profits from the meeting. Craig pointed out that the last SIMS in Australia, held in 1988, had been co-hosted by the MSA and by the ICTM and that the Symposium had had a positive effect on music research in Australia.

         There was general discussion of the issues involved in co-hosting SIMS 2004. In response to a question asked by Paul Attinello, Craig replied that, according to Margaret Kartomi, approximately 500–550 delegates usually attended IMS Symposia. Jula Szuster asked if the SIMS management committee would be seeking financial support from the MSA. Craig replied that the management committee would be making an application for the Society’s $500 Seeding Grant, but that this would be included in the SIMS budget: in other words, the seeding grant would be returned to the Society before any profits were returned to the IMS. In case of financial loss, the Society’s loss would be limited to the non-repayment of the Seeding Grant.

         Nicholas asked that discussion be confined to the two main issues of whether the Society would agree to host a joint meeting with SIMS 2004 and, if there was majority support for this proposal, whether the Society would approve the allocation of the Society’s seeding Grant to SIMS 2004.

It was moved that: The MSA hold a joint conference with the IMS in 2004.

Moved: Peter Campbell                                Seconded: Steven Knopoff

Carried, with one abstention

 It was further moved that: The Society allocate a Seeding Grant to the SIMS 2004 manage­ment committee.

Moved: Jula Szuster                                Seconded: John Phillips

Carried, with one abstention

          On the issue of co-hosting, John Whiteoak remarked that it would be good politics to have both MSA and IASPM members on the conference-symposium committees. Craig De Wilde agreed and replied that IASPM member Shane Homan had already been approached. Craig also pointed out that several MSA members had already been appointed to the management committee and sub-committees and that in fact all the members listed under the SIMS 2004 management committee were also long-time members of the MSA, but that he would ensure that at least another member of the MSA National Committee was also involved. On the issue of a ‘joint’ meeting Craig suggested that the 1995 model of the joint ICTM and MSA conference in Canberra might be a good model. Nicholas expressed concern about the inclusion of MSA presentations: he suggested that the MSA appoint a separate program committee and that the Victorian Chapter of the Society be asked to host the Society’s conference. Craig mentioned that Joel Crotty, conference convenor of the Victorian Chapter, had already been appointed to the SIMS management committee.

         Nicholas stressed that the MSA would need to have some input to the structure of the symposium-conference. It was his view that the MSA sessions would need to run as a national MSA conference hosted by one of the universities in Melbourne. A separate conference convenor would need to be appointed. Craig agreed to take these concerns to the SIMS management committee. In response to a question asked by Steven Knopoff Craig replied that Margaret Kartomi, as convenor and chair of the program committee for IMS, would also serve as chair for the MSA conference sessions, with additional input as deemed appropriate by the MSA. Peter Campbell added that a similar model had been followed in Canberra in 1995: Stephen Wild had been appointed Conference Chair and there had been both ICTM and MSA program committees. MSA members who had not been ICTM members had been able to submit papers for sessions that had run parallel to ICTM sessions. Nicholas also asked whether this joint meeting should be considered as a substitute for the Society’s annual National Conference in 2004. Craig De Wilde supported the idea that the proposed SIMS 2004 meeting also serve as the annual meeting of the MSA for 2004. 

It was moved that: The MSA ask the SIMS management committee for MSA representation on the SIMS management committee and an independent MSA program committee and that Craig De Wilde and Margaret Kartomi bring MSA interests to the attention of the SIMS management committee.

Moved: Chris Wainwright                                Seconded: Roland Bannister

Carried, with one abstention

It was moved that: The IMS report be accepted.

Moved: Jula Szuster                                Seconded: Chris Wainwright                                Carried

4.10 International Council for Traditional Music (ICTM) Report

Nicholas Routley referred members present to the ICTM report written by Stephen Wild (tabled). Stephen this year has been elected Vice President of the ICTM. He has also been appointed General Editor for the Yearbook for Traditional Music (2002-2004) and Chair of the ICTM Study Group on the Musics of Oceania.

It was moved that: The ICTM Report be accepted.

Moved: Kimi Coaldrake                             Seconded: Craig De Wilde

5. Conference Reports

5.1 Report on the 24th National Conference, Melbourne 2001

Peter Campbell referred members present to the conference report written by Conference Convenor Kerry Murphy (tabled). Kerry reported that 205 delegates had attended the conference. Of those, Peter explained that registrations in lieu of payment for services had been offered to 24 student volunteers and 8 conference committee members and keynote speakers. The conference committee had been very pleased with the number of papers submitted and the wide range of research topics covered. Almost all administration had been possible by email: only two presenters had not had email access. The committee had also been able to include requests for a number of extra meetings for interest groups.

         Peter reported that a small loss to the Society of around $120 had been covered by a $5000 guarantee from the Faculty of Music at the University of Melbourne. Peter also noted that the Faculty had covered a large number of other expenses, including the supply of technical and front office staff during normal business hours, building and equipment hire, some copying and postage expenses, the cost of the Federation concert, and all but one of the airfares required for keynote speakers. In response to a question asked by Roland Bannister, Peter explained that a number of costs, such as printing, had also come in below budget. Peter also stated, in response to a question from Jula Szuster, that the fee paid to conference administrator Elizabeth Kertesz had also been covered by the Faculty of Music.

It was moved that: The Report on the 24th National Conference be accepted.

Moved: Craig De Wilde                                 Seconded: John Phillips

5.2 Interim report on the Adelaide Study Weekend 2001

Study weekend convenor Jula Szuster reported that 23 paid registrations had been received. Income from the weekend was expected to be about $600, which should cover all expenses and leave a reasonable profit for the Society. This had only been possible with the support of the Elder Conservatorium—School of Performing Arts at The University of Adelaide. Jula also felt that the weekend had worked very well in conjunction with the State Opera of South Australia’s production of Parsifal, which several of the participants had attended. She thanked John Rink for his appropriate and thoughtful keynote address “The Problem of Performance”, and Kimi Coaldrake for arranging the use of facilities at the University. Nicholas Routley thanked Kimi, Jula and other members of the study weekend Organising Committee (John Phillips, Helen Rusak and Chris Wainwright) for organising a very successful weekend. Jula mentioned that the committee had been set a high benchmark by Roland Bannister’s organisation of the 1999 inaugural study weekend in Wagga Wagga.

It was moved that: The Society thank Jula and all other members of the committee for their organisation of a very successful study weekend.

Moved: Nicholas Routley                                Seconded: Paul Attinello              

5.3 Progress Report on the 25th National Conference, Newcastle 2002

Natalie Shea explained that the Newcastle Conference Committee, convened by Michael Ewans, had invited Suzanne Cusick and Roy Howatt to be the keynote speakers. Dates for the conference were 2–6 November 2002. A number of events were planned, including a concert as well as a conference dinner in a local winery. Papers would be due by 1 March 2002. Natalie also remarked that the Committee had submitted a revised second draft budget that was much stronger than their initial draft budget. They were, however, relying on strong and generous support from the University of Newcastle.

         One issue Natalie wished to bring to the attention of the meeting was that the second draft budget listed $2000 as the amount for student travel grants. In the past this amount had been set at $1500. The Conference Committee had explained that they would like to have this amount increased to allow them to invite a number of indigenous delegates. Natalie noted that this item was distinct from the amount set aside for the indigenous welcome. There was general discussion of this issue. Jennie Shaw felt that the request should be supported but that it should be listed in the budget as a separate item. Steven Knopoff agreed and suggested that the Executive ask the Conference Committee to clarify the matter by listing the amount requested for student travel grants and the amount for indigenous delegates separately in the budget. Nicholas would ask Michael Ewans to write a letter to the Executive to request the additional funding and explain its purpose.

         Nicholas also took the opportunity to acknowledge formally the Hunter Chapter. The chapter now had the requisite number of members and had made the appropriate application under the Society’s Constitution. While this formal acknowledgment did not require a motion of the meeting, Nicholas noted that it met with the support of those present.

5.4 Proposals for the 26th National Conference 2003

Nicholas Routley had been in contact with Peter Walls about the possibility of hosting a joint New Zealand Musicological Society (NZMS) and MSA conference in Wellington in 2003. The President of the NZMS had agreed to the suggestion of hosting a joint conference in early July 2003. General discussion followed.

It was moved that: The Society be given a mandate to hold a joint conference with the New Zealand Musicological Society in Wellington in 2003, and that Society President Nicholas Routley follow through negotiations with Peter Walls to clarify the details of who will host the meeting.

Moved:  Peter Campbell                Seconded: Chris Wainwright

6. Constitutional Referendum

Returning Officer Kimi Coaldrake reported that the Constitutional Amendment recognising the fundamental importance of indigenous musics in Australia and the Society’s promotion and support of a greater understanding of indigenous musics in Australia had been passed. Nicholas noted that an additional amendment to the Conference Guidelines had not required the endorsement of the membership. Nicholas thanked Linda Barwick and other members of the Indigenous Think Tank for their proposal and wording of the amendments.

         Steven Knopoff observed that the amendments were in line with a number of resolutions by other tertiary bodies and organisations in this country. At the Academic Program of the 2000 Garma Festival of Traditional Culture, for instance, indigenous and non-indigenous academics had devised the ‘Garma Declaration’ which, among other things, recommended to the AVCC that indigenous knowledge and perspectives be brought within mainstream edu­cation at Australian tertiary institutions. Kimi Coaldrake mentioned that The University of Adelaide had recently formulated and adopted a similar statement. Steven explained that it was necessary for the Society to establish links with indigenous musicians and thinkers and their communities, and for the communities to know that there are members of the Society who are interested in their music. In a practical sense, it would be useful to invite indigenous performers to Society events. John Phillips mentioned that this had occurred at the Sydney conference, and that the Newcastle Conference Committee was seeking to make invitations along those lines.

7. Election of Executive and National Committee Members

Returning officer Kimi Coaldrake announced the election results, which were as follows:

Executive: 

Nicholas Routley (President)

John Phillips (Secretary)

Natalie Shea (Treasurer)

Chris Wainwright (Membership Secretary)

National Committee:  

Anne-Marie Forbes, 

Steven Knopoff, 

Elizabeth Mackinlay, 

Simon Perry, 

Jennie Shaw

 David Symons,

 Jula Szuster

8. Motions of Appreciation

Nicholas Routley thanked returning officers Kimi Coaldrake and Roland Bannister for their assistance with the election and referendum. Nicholas thanked John Phillips for his assistance to the Executive. John thanked Chris Wainwright for taking on the role of Membership Secretary and Secretary pro tem. Jennie Shaw thanked the Executive for guiding the Society through an interesting year and Nicholas thanked the outgoing National Committee for their contributions to the Society. Chris commented that outgoing National Committee member Royston Gustavson had served in National Committee and Executive positions for almost ten years, and deserved the Society’s heartfelt thanks for his contributions over that time. Conference convenors Kerry Murphy and Jula Szuster were also thanked.

9. AOB

9.1 New on-line Music Business Journal

Craig De Wilde suggested that members might be interested in the new on-line Music Business Journal, which can be found at www.musicjournal.org (title page tabled). The site had recorded 26,000 hits between January and August 2001. The journal was being sponsored by a British organisation. Articles submitted were fully refereed and Craig had been appointed Australasian editor.

9.2 Music Council of Australia Music Commemoration Project

Jula Szuster referred members present to item 6.3 in the Minutes of the Society’s 2000 AGM in Newcastle. At the Newcastle AGM, invited guest Dick Letts from the Music Council of Australia (MCA) had explained that the 1999 Assembly of the MCA had come up with the idea of a Music Commemorations Project. Members present at that meeting had expressed support for the project, but had been concerned that the project, if too narrowly focused, risked making music of certain groups and individuals marginalised or invisible. A motion had been carried at that meeting that the Society establish a working party to consider the project, but no action had yet been taken. Jula suggested that she would be happy to chair such a group. After general discussion it was agreed that Jula would form such a working party, which would include representatives who could offer input on indigenous and other Australian musicians and musics and that she would report back to the Society.

9.3 Possible publication of Musicology Australia online

Steven Knopoff asked whether the Society had considered moving to an online version of Musicology Australia that would be downloadable for a fee. It was pointed out that this issue had been raised in the past and that it had been agreed that certain items of the journal such as the Register of Graduate Theses (now the Postgraduate Dissertations Register) should be moved entirely to the online format and that tables of contents and abstracts of article should also appear online. While the issue of placing articles and reviews online had been discussed this had not so far met with the support of contributors. Paul Attinello remarked that most music journals that succeed online had been conceived from the outset as online journals, and not as electronic versions of print journals. They also tended to adopt a more relaxed format. Nicholas suggested that the matter be left open for discussion.

9.4 Matters arising from the minutes of the 2000 AGM: Conference Proceedings

Peter Campbell referred members present to item 5.3 in the Minutes of the 2000 AGM in Newcastle where it had been moved that a pilot program be considered to include online the Society’s National Conference Proceedings. Peter reported that, to his knowledge, the Melbourne Conference Committee had not had the resources to consider this matter beyond the points Kerry Murphy had raised in those Minutes. Nicholas would pass on the concept of a pilot program to the Newcastle Conference Committee.

9.5 Approach by the Brisbane Convention Centre re the IMS Congress 2007

Nicholas Routley had been approached directly by the Brisbane Convention Centre with an invitation for them to host the IMS Congress in 2007. Nicholas had let Margaret Kartomi know about the invitation. After general discussion of this proposal it was agreed that it would be too soon after SIMS 2004 in Melbourne to consider a proposal to co-host the 2007 Congress and that the invitation would be declined.

Nicholas thanked everyone for their contributions and closed the meeting at 4.10 pm.

Jennie Shaw, National Committee

President’s Message

The year 2001 has seen the MSA adapt itself to the changing environment in which musicology finds itself in many ways. Many of these were discussed at the SGM and the National Committee Meeting in Melbourne last April, so I will do no more than summarise them here.

         I attach great importance to the integration of formerly marginalised enterprises as now central disciplines. We are shortly to vote on a constitutional amendment committing the society to greater interaction with Australian indigenous musics. We are moving towards providing a regular forum for gender and sexuality studies in musicology, representing specific subjectivities, at each of our conferences. We are also working towards the establishment of a code of ethics as a policy for the Society, a move which grows out of the understanding that the objects of study involve subjects too.

         We are about to establish the new Hunter Chapter, and a new venue for conferences in Newcastle, which will host next year’s conference. The reaffirmation of links with other societies is reflected in the proposed joint conference with the NZMS in Wellington in 2003, in the possibility of joining forces with the intercongressional symposium of the IMS to be held in Melbourne in 2004, and the increasing cross-disciplinary interaction between our Society and IASPM, ISME, and the ICTM, among others. We have begun to take seriously the possibility of some sort of co-ordination of musicological activities around the Pacific Rim.

         The conference in Melbourne last April was the largest in the Society’s history. We are addressing the issues raised by the fact that, in this time of extreme financial stringency among universities in this country, the Society’s members and even its executive are increasingly not all practising academics attached to music departments or faculties in universities. But despite the problems within universities, our membership is increasing.

         The Society’s journal, which under the editorship of Paul Watt will very likely achieve his objective of publishing in the nominal year of issue, has estab­lished an editorial committee to assist Paul and the assistant editor, Jennie Shaw.

         On a somewhat less upbeat note, we have suffered a crisis in the administration of the Society precipitated by the resignation of the Secretary, Kathy Marsh, in April. I am sure the Society as a whole will endorse my heartfelt thanks to both Chris Wainwright and John Phillips for keeping the ship afloat since then; and also to Natalie Shea, especially for not resigning. I must stress the fact that the Society cannot function unless every member, at some stage in their involvement with it, accepts some administrative responsibility for its activities. The difficulty we have experienced in filling the position of Secretary results in part from the greater demands being made on the time of full-time academics, and in part from the fact that so many of our members have in fact already taken administrative roles in the past, and quite reasonably feel that they have done their bit already. A resolution of such problems requires a concerted effort.

         Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that the Society is prospering in its increasing acceptance and fostering of diversity, a trend which I find deeply encouraging.

Nicholas Routley, National President

Secretary’s Report

2001 was a year that had many highpoints for the organisation. These included the outstandingly successful MUSICology 2001, the launch of the new format of Musicology Australia by its new editor Paul Watt, and the proposed change to the MSA’s Constitution.

         In terms of the society’s management, 2001 has been a complex year, in part due to Kathy Marsh’s resignation in April as National Secretary due to growing work commitments. This put the Committee in the difficult position of having to find a replacement. On the basis that John Phillips was willing to assist me with some of the work and issues, I agreed to fill the role in an acting capacity. The support and guidance which John Phillips has provided has been much appreciated.

         With the demise of One.Tel in August, I, together with the able assistance of Natalie Shea and Brett Chapman, spent many hours trying to get the MSA’s website back online. The financial and legal issues involved were complex. When it came to choosing the new provider, I was pleased when Brett advised me to go with the ‘tried and true’ Telstra.

         Apart from dealing with that, I have also devoted time to editing the web pages, updating incorrect information and the development of mutual web links with other arts organisations. The result has been the addition of approximately 12 MSA links with other arts and cultural web sites. In time, I hope that this will help increase the number of hits our website receives.

         As well as utilising and maximising the website as a marketing tool, I also utilised the MSA’s email database to advise our MSA members of meetings, academic employment, study opportunities and issues, which I believed were relevant to members.

         During the last six-months I have received on average two to three enquiries a week from potential new members, academics seeking contact with researchers, and requests for advice from government and cultural organisations. Most recently, the MSA received an in-depth enquiry from UNESCO about our services and needs. I understand that in the longer term some of this information may be added to a website being built by UNESCO.

         In the last month I have begun updating and editing the list of theses, which by agreement with the National Committee will have its title changed to ‘Post­graduate Dissertations Register’. I hope to have this completed and on the MSA’s website by mid-November. To ensure that this occurs I will continue with this responsibility until my term as Membership Secretary expires in late 2002.

         To close I would like to thank Kathy Marsh for all the hard work she undertook prior to her resignation. I would also like to thank John Phillips, Natalie Shea, Brett Chapman, Jennie Shaw, Anne-Marie Forbes and Nicholas Routley for all the support, advice and assistance they have provided during my term as National Secretary.

Chris Wainwright, National Secretary pro tem.

Treasurer’s Report

For the year ending 30 June 2001

1.    The Musicological Society of Australia finished the 2000/01 financial year with net assets of $27,643, representing a deficit of $1,874, despite a marked increase in income from individual and institutional subscriptions [please refer to the statement and audit on the following pages]. This deficit was largely due to the expected increased outlay on journal production created by the publication of two issues of Musicology Australia within the same financial year, and by the increase in typesetting and postage costs resulting from an almost 100% increase in the size of the journal and from the creation of a new text design. There were also additional expenses in administration costs resulting from the design and production of the new corporate identity and stationery suite.

2.    Income generated over the twelve-month period included $23,052 in subscriptions, representing $8,357 in institutional memberships and $14,695 in individual subscriptions. This is an increase of $9,885 from the previous year.

3.    The cost of producing a print run of 470 copies of Vol. 23 of Musicology Australia was as follows:
                Printing                $3,197.56
                Typesetting                $4,602.50
                Permission fee                $39.00
                Total cost                $7,839.06     (= $16.68 per copy)
Postage within Australia was $2.45 per copy.

4.    International parcel postage costs can be kept to $10.00 or less if the journal is sent Economy Air rather than Air Mail to members in Europe and North America.

5.    Taking these costs into consideration, I believe the current membership subscription fees ($55.00/$27.50 plus $11.00 for overseas members) to be reasonable, and recommend that the 2001/2002 subscription charges be held at the current rates.

6.    The April 2000 Sydney Conference returned a small loss of $303. The financial results of the November 2000 Newcastle study weekend and the April 2001 Melbourne Conference will not be shown until the 2001/02 financial year.

7.    The Society’s two investment accounts continue to thrive, producing $1,035 in interest between them in the 2000/01 financial year. 

8.    I would like to thank the members of the National MSA Committee for their support, and in particular Jula Szuster and John Phillips for their guidance and encouragement while I have been finding my MSA feet, and my colleagues on the Executive over the past year, Nicholas Routley, Kathy Marsh and Chris Wainwright.

Natalie Shea, National Treasurer

21 September 2001

Membership Secretary’s Report

The Musicological Society of Australia during the last year, a difficult time both in terms of the GST and our academic environment, has slightly increased its membership, as can be seen in Table 1 [please see over]. On a larger scale this is an especially pleasing result, as many organisations have seen a decline in membership due to the GST. A challenge we as an organisation may wish to take on is to consider is how we attract new members from outside of our academic environments who undertake music research as part of their employment or studies. I believe this needs to be seriously considered to ensure the MSA’s future longevity.

         In 2001, the main area of membership growth has occurred in Victoria due to an increase in student memberships, which arose due to the National Conference. There has also been an increase in membership due to the reactivation of the Northern NSW chapter, and the membership recruitment which has taken place for the formation of the new Hunter chapter based in Newcastle, NSW. This chapter will be formed shortly and with it the Sydney Chapter will lose approximately 10 members from their Chapter.

         It has also been pleasing in 2001 to see an increase in the percentage of members who are financial from 64% in November 2000 to close to 74% in September 2001. While saying that, in an ideal world it would be nice have nearly 90% of members financial. The reasons for saying this is that 80 to 90% is a standard financial membership percentage in other member-based arts organisations. Secondly, it reduces the number of overdue letters and forms the Membership Secretary has to write in early 2002.

         In closing I would like to warmly thank Natalie Shea, Anne-Marie Forbes, Kathy Marsh and John Phillips for all the assistance they have provided in record keeping, financial management and mail-outs during what has been an extremely busy year.

Christopher Wainwright

Membership Secretary 

 MSA Study Weekend 

Adelaide, 22–23 September 2001

“THE PERFORMER AND THE SCHOLAR”

 REPORT

Opening Address: “The Performer and The Scholar”

Kimi Coaldrake

Music in a University has many facets—teaching, performance, research and creative activity and administration. Pondering on my approach for this address I had various reactions. The initial one was that of anxiety. After an intense period immersed in the administrative interstices of multiple layers of change, I felt as if trapped in a maze. How could I possibly respond to John’s request to define in a meaningful, global way, the link between the performer and the scholar. It was, as Paul Attinello (personal communication 7.9.01) put it, asking for a definition of the intellectual universe with three examples. Mission Impossible perhaps…

         It is a timely challenge, which has served as the catalyst for me to re-engage that intellectual universe over which I have been forced to circle the past year. On reflection, the administrative tasks have tended to immerse me, but at the same time have also had a distancing effect. They have helped me to gain my own perspective of music and performance as I manoeuvred to place music at Adelaide more firmly within the boundaries of realities of the Federal educational system and fiscal world. As I sat at the computer keyboard endlessly preparing documents and emails, I gained a perspective of virtual reality. At times it involved so many layers. The layers symbolically represented by the ever increasing gigabytes of computer files and folders, layers all within a system that generated a range of connections and often established a dialogue not just with colleagues, but with some virtual being in my computer. The virtual being’s favourite prompt became ‘Are you sure you want to do this?’ Wise words. It seems the system orchestrates, in sometimes perversely logical, even frustrating ways, a series of connections. Connections, ultimately conducted and inter­preted by us, the individual human beings, and in our case, the performers and the scholars. How do we find the way to understand the complex connections between scholarship, practical music, music making, music listening? How do we find the links between music ‘thinking’ and music ‘doing’? As we seek to find that balance between the passion for the art and other economic rationalist pressures, we can feel lost among the bewildering array of directives, menus and options. In response, it is easy to bunker down in isolated practice rooms (sandstone or not) or in offices, tapping at computer keyboards churning out megabytes of text. That is a virtual reality. It is never the reality of music and music making.

         And so to my Mission Impossible for today, which I agreed to accept. Firstly, a definition of our universe that we call ‘Music’ in which we participate as performers and scholars. Then, there are three examples. While I freely admit that for some, such a definition becomes a lifelong mission, even a Holy Grail, I would prefer not to be seen as a latter-day Parsifal, leading us to the trans­cendent truth. Perhaps I am the ‘Innocent Fool made wise through compassion’. Perhaps, by virtue of my gender and recent role, you may see me as the ‘wild woman’ Kundry. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions, but I present the following thoughts, not as a grand prophecy, but as a Leitmotiv that may invite development over the course of this weekend.

Definitions

Music, that intangible cultural product, cherished by so many, ignored by others. Yet, if I were to seek the ultimate truth, it would be to declare that music comes to life only through the intervention of human beings. A process of intervention involving all aspects of the discipline: creation/composition; participation; performance; listening; preservation/documentation. This notion of a living tradition is adopted more formally in Asia, most notably Japan. The title ‘Living National Treasure’ (ningen kokuhō) is the popular appellation for ‘the holder of the intangible cultural property’ (jūyō mukei bunkazai). This designation recognizes that the music, performance skills or craft techniques, the intangible cultural property, only comes to life through the person. The authority for the tradition therefore lies with the person/ performer, rather than lying with the written word or score. The musical text becomes the ‘script’ which, as Nicholas Cook (2001) reminds us, becomes more open to interpretation by the individual.

         Yet, such interpretations are keenly guided by the conventions of the tradition and the desire by performers to improve their own presentations. It may involve a process of ‘informed’ intuition. It may involve the scholars in­forming the processes of reconstruction and reinterpretation. It may involve inter­textual borrowing from genres or styles within or across cultures. But we cannot escape the fact that music comes to life through the intervention of human beings. And being only human, we all are influenced by the context and experiences that occur along our life path, experiences that are social, cultural, edu­cational, rooted in history, text-based, live or mediated. In our current age, the political and social contexts have had a significant impact. The jargon of the bureaucrat may offend the senses, but it may also stir the creative passions. I am thinking in particular of the recent developments of the so-called ‘creative industries’.

         It is interesting to pause and think about this term ‘creative industry’. To be ‘creative’ means ‘to bring into existence’ usually with the implication of creative imagination, while ‘industry’ refers to ‘manufacture’, though these days it is usually associated with the technological revolution of the late 20th century rather than the industrial revolution of the 19th century. But surely this notion of ‘creative industry’ is a new-economy spin on old-economy ways—another way to describe the processes taking place over the centuries between the scholar and performer that have brought us music and the performing arts. In my mind’s eye, in my creative imagination, I see the room in the medieval abbey in which scribes sat re-producing the manuscripts with the latest technology of their time, the latest writing implements and paper, new notation and forms of binding. We still go through that process, albeit aided and abetted by software such as Sibelius and the antichrist of Microsoft. For our times, it raises her­me­neutic questions associated with the applications of technology to recording, documenting, preserving and ultimately interpreting that ‘thing’ we know as ‘music’ whether in the Western Art Music tradition, popular music forms or traditions of other cultures.

         The onus is upon us now in our lived experience to ensure that we do not lose the reality of music as a result of our own actions. We must ensure that music-thinking and music-doing are not demarcated by disciplinary boundaries identified by encrypted signs with self-serving terminology, forced to conform to preconceived notions or menus and becoming intellectually blinkered by pro­cesses of our own making. There is hope. Australian musicology has historically shunned the models of some of our international societies and looked to broader horizons, refusing to put up intellectual fences. But we still need disciplinary signposts. They point us in particular directions. As a community of musicians (to borrow a term from Charles Bodman Rae), we are on a journey where we can work together in tandem to build that understanding about music scholarship and performance. We are unquestionably starting from our local community, but in this day and age we cannot ignore the ‘global’ perspective.

         It is therefore important this weekend as we work together as a community, to think ‘globally’ in a number of ways. First, there is ‘global’ in terms of the physical world and cultural domains. Second, there is ‘global’ in terms of embracing intellectual spheres; the metaphysically global, even the visionary. This is not a static definition, for to adopt such is to accept that there is a unique and unchanging structure or object in performance or scholarship, ‘frozen’ and explicable only by means of a handful of native and indigenous terms, relevant only to a particular time and space. Surely, music has become such a dynamic process that the term ‘global’ also accounts for the increasing pace of interaction between scholar and performer. These days the quiddity of the performance or its interpretation becomes only constrained by the limits of the creative imagination; the ‘live’ performances which may never be seen ‘live’ but viewed by millions across the globe; the online chat rooms used by so many to pursue intellectual arguments or irreverent criticism. Such an increasing pace of interaction is the ‘lived’ experience of global modernity, one in which there is a dissolution of the line between cultural experience and territorial location (Tomlinson 1999). Local identity and cultural tradition may be more ephemeral than ever, cast aside in the time it takes to download the newest ‘patch’ or software upgrade or MP3 through the Internet.

         What then is the role of the musicologist? Where does the performer fit in? Do we reaffirm the central illusion of Western Art Music, that music is product and best left to the performer, while an understanding of the processes be left to the musicologist, or the ethnomusicologist! Nicholas Cook (2001) in his recent article ‘Between Process and Product: Music and/as Performance’ in Music Theory Online, has some penetrating observations to make about both product and process. He explores the way that music may be understood as both process and product, but argues it is the relationship between the two that defines ‘performance’ in the Western ‘art’ tradition. He believes that we should be drawing on interdisciplinary performance theory in the study of music as performance, and argues that if we think of scores as ‘scripts’ rather than texts, we then understand performance as a generator of social meaning. He believes that process and product are complementary strands of performance. This is an idea we might like to pursue further this weekend. It doubtless will help us to think more globally.

         Thus, my definition of our universe of music is a global one. As I have said, ‘global’ in the sense of its cultural and cross-cultural qualities, yet contingent upon a physical location and ‘global’ in the sense of metaphysical, moving beyond intellectual boundaries to explore the universe of music. At its centre lies the community of musicians, at its heart lies the performer and the scholar.

Three Examples

Returning now to the brief of my Mission Impossible, I turn to my three examples. Example One is Christopher Small’s Musicking (1998). He states: ‘‘To music’ is to take part in any capacity, in a musical performance, whether by performing, by listening, by rehearsing or by practicing, by providing material for performance (what is called composing), or by dancing.’ (1998:9) It is descriptive and it covers every form of participation in a performance, whether it is active or passive. It is process-oriented, not product-focused. It accepts a broader perspective of ‘music doing’ as extending beyond the stage to permit a definition of music as an activity, an event in which all participants explore and create their social identity. While relatively new to traditional musicology, ethnomusicologists have long accepted the necessity of this functionalist approach in order to experience and understand music within the totality of its (cultural) context. (See also Cook 2001:10). It has much to offer the performer and the scholar.

         Example Two is Benjamin Brinner’s Knowing Music, Making Music (1995). Brinner presents a way to model knowledge about music, that is, ways of ‘knowing’ music as well as ‘making’ music. It is a complex model that takes the intricate collaborative structure of Indonesian gamelan as its point of departure, but is informed by a variety of traditions. In so doing, Brinner draws on cogni­tive theory to lay the foundation for a comprehensive theory of musical compe­tence and interaction. He seeks a balance between the declarative ‘know that’ understanding which is the basis of musical product and the procedural ‘know how’ which is the basis of music process. In this way, there is no separa­tion between the elements of thinking and doing music. They are comple­mentary.

         For the third and final example, it is interesting to turn to Richard Schechner’s (rev. ed. 1988) seminal early work on performance theory. He presents two models to understand the relationships that create performance: the fan and the web. The fan presents performance as the point of origin from which all activities emanate in a unilateral way. By contrast, the web describes a more dynamic environment for performance in which each part interacts with others. It offers a system to understand the complex relationship which contribute to per­formance; what he calls the ‘deep structure’ that will allow us a way to present what anthropologists of the Geertzian school call ‘thick description’. For Australians in 2001, Barry Jones’ now famous model of the web for the ‘Knowledge Nation’ is probably just as apposite.

Conclusion

Let me conclude with a personal reflection on the scholar and the performer. You would be forgiven for thinking that my discussion of the web of relationships within performance presents the scholarly side most adequately for I have used words and have not chosen to play any musical examples. But let me assure you that I stand here not just as Kimi Coaldrake with a string of academic qualifications and scholarly publications in recognition of the music thinking or music knowing that I have done. I also stand here with the experi­ence of my involvement in the world of Japanese koto. There, as you well know, a performance name was bestowed on me by a Living National Treasure for ‘doing’ music, i.e., for making music. That name, Reiku Hirowakyō, literally means ‘enduring grace, centre for peace and esteem’. It epitomises a sensibility nurtured not only through the ‘know how’ of intellectualising about music both within and beyond the boundaries of culture, but also through a physical grasp of knowing the technicalities of ‘doing’ music. It is in the musicking associated in particular with the koto that my two selves, Kimi Coaldrake and Reiku Hiro­wakyō, the knowing and the doing, my head and my heart, come together in a complex web. We all can recount similar experiences of the way the thinking and doing of music come together, no matter the genre or style of music and music making with which we are involved. This weekend provides us with a wonderful opportunity as a community of musicians to explore such connections between thinking and doing music; to search for the ultimate truths about music. But let us look globally as we search for that Holy Grail!

References Cited:

Brinner, Benjamin. 1995. Knowing Music, Making Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cook, Nicholas. 2001. ‘Between Process and Product: Music and/as Performance. Music Theory Online 7/2 http://boethius.music.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.01.7.2/mto.01.7.2.cook.html#FN28REF 

Schechner, Richard. 1988 (rev. edn.). Performance Theory. New York: Routledge.

Small, Christopher. 1998. Musicking. Hanover and London: Wesleyan University Press.

Tomlinson, John. 1999. Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Summary of Keynote Address “The Problem of Performance”

John Rink

Musical performance may well be a ‘virtually universal human activity’ (Jonathan Dunsby), but it is plagued by misconception and only superficially understood by amateurs and experts alike. That is so despite the avalanche of literature on performance in recent years and the increased recognition on the part of scholars of the centrality of performance to musical thought and musicological research. This paper identifies three axes that emanate from the burgeoning literature and from the act of performance itself—axes of possibility, impossibility and responsibility, the first of which primarily concerns the scholar, the second the performer, and the third both scholar and performer. It then undertakes a case study of Rachmaninoff’s Prelude in G flat, revealing not only the potential for interaction between musicians and musicologists, but also the challenges that face them in trying to resolve the problems of performance.

         Nicholas Cook’s essay ‘Between Process and Product: Music and/as Performance’ serves as the point of departure. Cook argues that in the Western art tradition a dynamic between process and product defines performance: indeed, these form an ‘insoluble amalgam’. He then outlines seven ways in which we might study music as performance. Although instructive, Cook’s agenda pays little heed to the performer’s own concerns, and this is indicative of a tendency within performance studies that needs to be questioned.

         Admittedly there are obstacles to understanding musical performance from the performer’s standpoint. These arise from the evanescence of performance, its ontology, what it means and communicates, and the performer’s com­promised identity in the act of performance. In outlining these I lay the groundwork for further ways forward within performance studies—ways that might help bring performers back into the frame.

         I also claim that performers are hemmed in by expectations and requirements to the point that ‘possibility’ is overshadowed by ‘responsibility’ in their musical lives. Although rarely acknowledged, the musicologist’s role in guiding and informing the performer also requires the discharge of responsibility. For too long an implicit assumption has prevailed within the musicological literature that scholars have the upper hand in matters of knowledge and judgement, and that performers who do not actively seek out and eagerly assimilate the findings of scholarship in their interpretations run the risk of shallow, meaningless music-making which serves them as individuals first and foremost, rather than some higher ideal. Such a view is indefensible and should be laid to rest once and for all.

         Equally, it is time to recognise that performers are worth listening to by musicologists, and that means listening not only to their musical performances but also to what they have to say about their musical performances. Music­ologists should resist any temptation to dictate, and should never presume that a given fact or finding has to dominate a performer’s reading of a piece or passage—just as performers should remain open-minded to the possibility of ‘different, better’ performances (Janet Schmaldfeldt) which might well be informed by what scholars have to tell them. Perhaps the best way of sur­mount­ing the obstacles of evanescence, communication and so on, and further­more the best way of understanding music as performance, is by combining words and performance—that is, by devising opportunities for perform­ance and discussion to take place alongside, in between, before and after each other. Different sorts of performance context would help to achieve the integration of sound, word, and image encouraged by Cook, making musical performance more tangible and vivid however conceptually elusive it might remain.

         The second half of this paper accordingly combines word and deed—that is, talking and playing. After performing the Rachmaninoff prelude, I describe its considerable technical challenges, among others the delicate balancing of mani­fold contrapuntal parts and the use of the pedal, especially in the build-up to the climax, where the pianist’s hands interlock and awkwardly but tellingly compete for the same notes. I also identify how I gradually came to imagine this deceptively complex music in a form different from the published score. It was only after extensive contact with the piece that I gained a sense of its ‘shape’—a property alluded to in Rachmaninoff’s own insistence that the performer must approach a work’s ‘culmination… with absolute calculation, absolute precision, because if it slips by, then the whole construction crumbles, the piece becomes disjointed and scrappy and does not convey to the listener what must be conveyed’.

         Such were the complexities of the score that I was compelled to analyse the music away from the piano in order to meet the challenge set by Rachmaninoff. That involved teasing out the complex contrapuntal implications by con­structing a new score explicitly showing the various textures, as well as a profile of contrapuntal activity revealing an innate rhythm, that is, a process of expansion and contraction determining the performance’s physiognomy and breathing. The reworked score is more a reconfiguration than an analysis, yet it has analytical import as well as constituting a performing edition of sorts. 

         I eventually started practising from this ‘edition’ apart for the rhapsodic passage towards the end, which requires the pianist’s control of some seven or eight parts with just two hands and is perhaps best mastered by not envisaging it as literally manifested in the reworked score (or indeed Rachmaninoff’s orig­inal). Its complexity can be heard by playing the passage without pedal (i.e. ‘unmasked’), just as the cumbersome yet meaningful interlocking of the hands in the build-up to climax can be demonstrated by performing the passage slowly, thus revealing how the music’s physical incarnation affects and effects the communication of meaning.

         I conclude by observing that my overall conception was determined in large part by the way in which the music feels and, as a result, sounds—in other words, by the positioning and interaction of the two hands as they make their way from start to finish. Physicality and texture in the broadest sense are a significant key to meaning here—texture as seen in the reworked score, texture as embodied by and through the performer, texture as heard. Whether that ‘hearing’ results in communication cannot be guaranteed, however, and verbal explanation might be the only way of making the point of the music loud and clear. Talking and playing together allow one to unite different languages of thought and feeling, to overcome in some small way the many problems of performance identified in this presentation, and ultimately to fulfil one’s responsibilities as scholar and performer.

         The paper ends with one last performance of the Prelude, as if to let the music itself have the final word.

John Rink

Discussion 1:

Musicology and music making in the Western tradition

The first discussion session developed many of the ideas presented in Kimi Coaldrake’s Opening Address and my own Keynote Paper, tackling the stated theme while also paving the way for the second and third sessions. The first hour was devoted to brainstorming, the second (after lunch) to a more focused consideration of the subject at hand. Delegates were initially invited to compile a list of topics of interest and concern, and the following emerged:

·    historical performance research (both ‘pure’ and applied)

·    the status of performance as research (involving issues of value and legitimacy, not to mention political and aesthetic considerations)

·    the ways in which musicology is or could be performative

·    how to teach performance, and how to teach performers musicology (here the possible dichotomy between intuition and knowledge was noted, especially the fact that many performers regard a certain kind of knowledge as an impediment to creativity)

·    financial imperatives (e.g. the need to earn a living, whether as a performer or a scholar)

·    tradition versus innovation (partly involving challenges to musicological and pedagogical canons)

·    historical reasons for the traditional separation of scholarship and performance, and the need to overcome the boundaries between the two

·    what ‘performance studies’ might constitute in teaching and in research

·    the status of recordings as against live performances

·    perceived responsibilities to composers’ intentions

·    the need to recognise a rich plurality of both performers and scholars

The discussion in the first half of the session concentrated on several of these themes. Musicologists typically find themselves apologising for ‘knowing’ rather than ‘doing’, and for being less ‘relevant’ to real music-making than might be desired by some. It was noted that the best means of getting ideas across might be through explicitly performative modes of communication such as pre-concert talks instead of just programme notes, or lecture-recitals rather than simply lectures. One important priority was for musicologists to achieve credibility in the eyes of performers, especially performance students. This might be accom­plished by enhancing scholars’ knowledge and understanding of the technical concerns of performers and the technical requirements of performance. That could help to bridge the ‘epistemological gap’ (Jonathan Dunsby) that exists bet­ween the two domains, while also ensuring the relevance of any performance-related teaching that musicologists are asked to carry out.

         The second part of the discussion initially focused on three areas within Western musicology: history, analysis and the psychology of music. As for the first, the scholar’s valuable role in ‘recreating’ works for the sake of performance was noted—i.e. in effecting reconstructions of otherwise unperformable music. This led to a heated debate about ‘pure’ versus ‘applied’ research activity—a problem that obtains throughout the university sector, not just in domains related to musical performance. ‘Accountability’—to society at large, to one’s audiences (however conceived) and to oneself—was addressed, and difficult questions were asked about the demonstrable value of musicology and whether or not performers need musicologists. It was stated that partly because of a shortage of university posts, different types of scholars and indeed scholarship were evolving, just as different types of student these days require a more pragmatic and to some extent less ambitious approach to teaching.

         Although that might appear to threaten the ‘purity’ of research, the conclusion was reached that musicologists may well have to take the initiative in seeking a rapprochement between scholarship and performance—a point that had not really occurred to a number of participants in this debate. For my own part, I had always regarded performers and musicologists as on a level playing field in terms of their potential to inform each other, and while that may be true in principle, it is not necessarily so in practice, given the notorious reticence of practitioners to come clean about what they are doing and why they are doing it. Academics are trained to be articulate and to be well versed in more than one language; if communication is to occur, therefore, it might need to take place as a result of concerted effort on musicologists’ parts to get their ideas across accessibly and persuasively. This could require the development of a lingua franca, as well as patience in listening to performers who for whatever reason are less than willing or able to convey their thoughts about music-as-performed in terms that musicologists would recognise and feel comfortable with. Their per­son­alised musical narratives, for instance, often make the scholarly minded squirm, but when sensitively listened to and the ideas behind them pursued, they have as much potential to reveal musical ‘truths’ as do those stories that music­ologists construct—stories that are sometimes as impenetrable and unap­pealing to other musicologists as they are to performers.

         The need, then, is for receptivity and a desire for reciprocity on both sides; a willingness to talk and think about music in new and different ways (and in ways that might well threaten one’s identity as a ‘pure’ researcher or as a performing artist); recognition of the fact that there are many different sorts of scholar, just as there are many different sorts of performer; enhanced knowledge on the part of musicologists of performance’s ‘technical specifications’, as well as a desire to take the initiative in getting debate and dialogue started; the development of a lingua franca to bridge the epistemological gulf traditionally separating performers and musicologists; and the creation of new modes of interaction and investigation that transcend the limitations of performances, publications or papers on their own. Together these points formed the conclusions of a lively and stimulating discussion of potential value to scholars and performers alike, although it was commonly accepted that however far we had gone in trying to bring the two sides together, there was still a long way to go.

         Sincere thanks go to Kimi Coaldrake for the loan of her notes on this session.

John Rink, Session Chair

Discussion 2:

Popular and Classical Performance Scholarship:
Similarities and Differences

The stimulating opening session chaired by John Rink focussed on classical music scholarship and, while it covered some issues that were relevant to ‘popular music studies’, it was not possible to segue into this vastly broader topic and its relationship to classical music scholarship. I had been invited to chair this session on the strength of my long involvement in popular music studies. Therefore, it seemed appropriate to outline what I personally believed to be the main issues as a take-off point for debate, whilst inviting participants to continue threads of discussion developed in session one if they so wished. As things worked out, the 2–3pm session largely followed a format in which each of my perspectives on the topic was followed by questions and general discussion, but not much debate. Given the breadth and complexity of the topic, this was probably a better outcome than a freewheeling discussion on ideas that were familiar to some but less so to others.

          The opening issue was the difficulty of defining the term ‘popular music’ for study purposes, especially with regards to the period before mass-mediated and marketed musics. It was established that discussion would be limited to popular music as mass mediated and marketed music. Some important aspects of popular music studies (such as its particular focus on popular music industry matters) were also bypassed in favour of discussion relating more directly to ‘the performer and the scholar’ and musical analysis. The cross-cultural aspect of popular music studies was put aside for Steven Knopoff’s session on Sunday morning. Various issues that distinguished the concerns of popular from classical music research were discussed. They included:

         ‘Composition’ versus performance. This discussion addressed the lack of concern for the composer’s original score (where one exists at all) in popular music studies. It was noted that what is most interesting and meaningful in popular music is what individual artists or ensembles bring collectively to the performance of, or improvisation upon, a given composition: what Charles Keil has coined ‘participatory discrepancies’. The importance of the popular music arranger (as opposed to the composition he or she arranges) was also discussed.

         The concept of ‘the hook’ in popular music. This brought forward discussion of possible equivalents to the hook in classical music and whether traditional musicology and composers might benefit from popular music research in this area (possibly allowing classical composers to write music that was more meaningful to more people).

         Technology. This discussion examined the importance and research implication of technological mediation in popular music. Topic ranged over piano-roll editing, microphone technique in crooning and later pop vocals, amps and effects, DJ mixing, the embedding of new musical meaning into a recorded performance during post-production (the mixer as creative artist), and web-based collaborative real time composing in ‘virtual studios’. Modification of classical music performance through amplification was also discussed.

         Language. The hiatus between the technical and other language used in popular music studies and that of traditional musicology was examined. An example of jargon-filled popular music language from an article by Richard Middleton was read and discussed. Also discussed were examples of Australian popular music writers who were trying to develop more accessible language.

         Canon. This discussion addressed the fact the popular music and related disciplines have produced a canon of scholarly literature that is, for the most part, unassociated with the canon of traditional musicology.

         Analysis. Special problems associated with the analysis of popular music were discussed. One example was the way that popular music is always engaged with rapidly shifting popular taste and how the ‘patterning’ of specific genres is often only fully decipherable by insiders of music-based subcultures, such as Industrial Punk.